IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2012-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

(Just) first time lucky ? The impact of single versus multiple bank lending relationships on firms and banks' behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Giorgia Barboni
  • Tania Treibich

Abstract

The widespread evidence of multiple bank lending relationships in credit markets suggests that rms are interested in setting up a diversity of banking links. However, it is hard to know from the empirical data whether a rm's observed number of lenders is symptomatic of nancial constraints or rather a well-designed strategy. We design an experimental credit to analyze the determinants of multiple bank lending relationships, both from the demand and the supply side. Our results show that borrowers prefer multiple lending when they are credit rationed and unable to stabilize their lending source, whatever their risk level. Moreover, rationed borrowers are less likely to repay and display a higher tendency to switch between lenders. At the same time, we observe that the determinants of lending change according to the type of information available on the loan applicants. If their quality is not observable, only credit history and relationship length matter, while the borrowers' behavior clearly impacts the lending decision if information is complete. Our ndings support the view that the number of banking relationships is mainly determined by the supply side.

Suggested Citation

  • Giorgia Barboni & Tania Treibich, 2012. "(Just) first time lucky ? The impact of single versus multiple bank lending relationships on firms and banks' behavior," LEM Papers Series 2012/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
  • Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2012/13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2012-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ongena, Steven & Smith, David C., 2000. "What Determines the Number of Bank Relationships? Cross-Country Evidence," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 26-56, January.
    2. Brown, Martin & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2011. "The Threat of Exclusion and Relational Contracting," Discussion Papers in Economics 12287, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    3. Carletti, Elena & Cerasi, Vittoria & Daltung, Sonja, 2007. "Multiple-bank lending: Diversification and free-riding in monitoring," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 425-451, July.
    4. Berger, Allen N & Udell, Gregory F, 1995. "Relationship Lending and Lines of Credit in Small Firm Finance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(3), pages 351-381, July.
    5. Brown, Martin & Zehnder, Christian, 2010. "The emergence of information sharing in credit markets," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 255-278, April.
    6. Luigi Guiso & Raoul Minetti, 2010. "The Structure of Multiple Credit Relationships: Evidence from U.S. Firms," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(6), pages 1037-1071, September.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Farinha, Luisa A. & Santos, Joao A. C., 2002. "Switching from Single to Multiple Bank Lending Relationships: Determinants and Implications," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 124-151, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Repeated Games; Information Asymmetries; Multiple Lending; Relationship lending;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2012/13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/labssit.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.